Is the latest morality the best?

[Vera_Ljuba]

I only asked you if, according to your definition, you would be consistent about intentionally causing harm to an unborn child. You manage to avoid this question.

Nope, I did not avoid. My definition included the stipulation of “feeling”, not just living. Before the brain is sufficiently developed, there is no “pleasure / pain” center, there is no “feeling of pain”. It is no problem to cause “harm” to a rock (by breaking it into pieces) or a carrot (by pulling it up and eating it alive). The reason is that these “entities” do not suffer. And the zygote does not suffer either.

Now, you may question my definition of “evil”, but that is a different issue. Give your definition of “evil” and we might go on.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Nope, I did not avoid. My definition included the stipulation of “feeling”, not just living. Before the brain is sufficiently developed, there is no “pleasure / pain” center, there is no “feeling of pain”. It is no problem to cause “harm” to a rock (by breaking it into pieces) or a carrot (by pulling it up and eating it alive). The reason is that these “entities” do not suffer. And the zygote does not suffer either.

Now, you may question my definition of “evil”, but that is a different issue. Give your definition of “evil” and we might go on.

I think, as others have already pointed out, you are in over your head. :sad_bye:

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think that you accurately represent the Catholic “truth”. (Btw, there is no separate Catholic truth and a separate Presbyterian truth or Baptist truth or secular truth; a proposition is either true or not)

LOL!

Yes, Vera.

Example #8078 why you are an absolutist.

“A proposition is either true or not”. Yes, ma’am!

#objectivetruth.